There should instead be a legal claim that doctors be allowed to punch people who even suggest that and bar them from the fertility clinic. They didn't invent this stuff so that you could break your children before they're even born, dumbasses.

The politics of identity are important, but there is a point here it gets out of control and thats where someone mistakes the ability to have pride in who they are for the ability to demand that limitations on the human experience should be perceived as neutral qualities. There is also a moment where parents cross the line into a selfish sort of madness where the culture of the family is more important then health of the child.

Part of this is people are idiots and can't see the difference in neutral aspect of human life and medical issues one can be proud of over coming and so they apply the politics of one to the other. Enlightened politics of race and sexuality, conditions which bear no relation to a person's ability to partake of what the world offers, are confused in people's minds with disabilities like blindness or deafness where people can find identity in overcoming the condition.

Raise the child with an awareness of sign language, of the nature of his folk's worlds and an appreciation of the identity the parents have developed. But to seek for deafness to conform to their social condition is to take away choice for the sake of their own normal.

Abortion, for example, is preventing the kid to be born. It's done (or it should be) on the first stage of pregnancy, while it's not alive yet. If we follow the philosophy of "even sperms are life", all men are mass murderers. So, abortion is preventing the kid to be born, not killing it. It's like NOT having sex. You could be having sex and having a kid, but you're not, so you're preventing a possible kid to come to this world... because you're not horny, or you're wearing a condom, or something. This is my view of the matter.

Now, HAVING the kid, giving birth to it... and forcing it to be fucking DEAF is just... beyond stupid. Parents wanting to give their kids identity instead of letting their kids decide THEIR OWN identity.

There should instead be a legal claim that doctors be allowed to punch people who even suggest that and bar them from the fertility clinic.

More power to anybody who does well in life despite a disability, but they still need to remember it isdespite...

Oh, eugenics.... You prick.

Wanting the best for your child is one thing. Forcing your child to be some kind of abstract "best" is just creepy and against all kinds of naturalism. This still counts towards this argument, all that changes is a twisted, super-subjective definition of "best".

"Wanting the best for your child is one thing. Forcing your child to be some kind of abstract "best" is just creepy and against all kinds of naturalism. This still counts towards this argument, all that changes is a twisted, super-subjective definition of "best"."

Most countries only allow embryo selection when its in the interests of the embryo. That's why, for example, sex-selection screening is generally banned except where there are valid reasons (some countries allow it where there's a risk of transmitting a sex-linked disorder for which there's no specific test; some countries allow it for "family balance" where say a family has three sons and want a daughter.)

This case is more akin to two white supremacists wanting to ensure their child has blue eyes and blond hair.

Oh and if these people really, really want a deaf child, there are these places called orphanages - where deaf kids are disproportionately likely to end up.

What pisses me off about this sort of thing is that the political backlash may slow down genuine progress in genetic treatments that can prevent or correct all kinds of horrible defects. I'd sell my soul to be able to fix my son's Tourette's/ADHD/etc problems.

I should really know better by now but I am going to come out in favour of Eugenics. Well not so much in favour as accepting it as inevitable. If their was some way to stop it altogether I would.

If you are a parent and have a chance to make your kid smarter ,stronger and more resistant to disease it is going to be a really hard thing to say no to. Realistically we don't have much of a choice unless the entire world enacts STRICT laws against it parents are going to do it as soon as the tech is available. In a way we have been doing a crude version when we select a partnerbased on what we like. If this does not scare the crap out of you you are not paying attention. If you think the gap between the haves and have not's is bad now ,just wait until the haves are physically and mentally superior.

I hope there are no doctors who would harm a child by making them deaf on purpose.

Assuming homosexuality is genetic(I have no idea and don't want to go near that one) what happens when that becomes a choice for parents?

Hell, I can understand (not sure if I can condone it) wanting a stronger, healthier kid and using eugenics to obtain that, but the deaf case is such a (in a weird way, now) cosmetic adjustment. It's nothing to do with actually having a healthier/stronger child, it's just making your kid the way you want it to be. That kind of subjectivity beats me around the head while I sleep at night.

I think the deaf thing is way worse than simply racist parents wanting nordic features. This is actually harming your kid because you have tried to convince yourselfthat your disability is OK. If you did something after the kid was born to make him deaf you would go to prison and hopefully lose your parental privileges.

If eugenic treatments were around and other parents were getting them could you in good conscience not get them for your kid and have her or him be disadvantaged?Look how insane people get about getting their kid in the right preschool ,now what if they could buy their kid another 45 IQ points?

Would a eugenically enhanced America with say a median intelligence 20 points higher have elected Bush?I think I just scored a point for eugenics here?What if you could turn off pedophilia ,bullying and rape?

What if you could make the rich smarter and the poor happier pumping gas etc like a race of slaves?Damn I just scored a point against.I think i will shut up now.

aside from the obvious good points already made about the "programming" of children to have a disability, i must point out the dangerous assumptions made about eugenics: about picking and choosing the features of future human beings. the dangers of this are far beyond just the historical societal irresponsibility of humankind, but also would have unknown, but most likely very negative consequences evolutionarily. so much is still unknown about the complexities of the human genome, and all studies of evolution so far indicate that random assortment of a multiplicity of alleles is the best bet for a successful species. the beautiful thing about random assortment is that new advantageous combinations cannot really be predicted, and narrowing the number by artificially over-selecting for specific "desirable" traits would probably end very badly for us. attempting to build "superhumans" by tampering with the genetic code is, and should continue to be, viewed as very unwise, and should be limited to screening for devastating illnesses. (screening is not done by tampering with the DNA, but is done by selecting embryos that do not contain the disease causing allele, which is as close as we would ever want to come to eugenics: again....the good of the child, but within the realm of good sense and science.) For good examples of negative consequences of limited gene pools, see cheetahs or purebred dogs.

aside from the obvious good points already made about the "programming" of children to have a disability, i must point out the dangerous assumptions made about eugenics: about picking and choosing the features of future human beings. the dangers of this are far beyond just the historical societal irresponsibility of humankind, but also would have unknown, but most likely very negative consequences evolutionarily. so much is still unknown about the complexities of the human genome, and all studies of evolution so far indicate that random assortment of a multiplicity of alleles is the best bet for a successful species. the beautiful thing about random assortment is that new advantageous combinations cannot really be predicted, and narrowing the number by artificially over-selecting for specific "desirable" traits would probably end very badly for us. attempting to build "superhumans" by tampering with the genetic code is, and should continue to be, viewed as very unwise, and should be limited to screening for devastating illnesses. (screening is not done by tampering with the DNA, but is done by selecting embryos that do not contain the disease causing allele, which is as close as we would ever want to come to eugenics: again....the good of the child, but within the realm of good sense and science.) For good examples of negative consequences of limited gene pools, see cheetahs or purebred dogs.

Good point, eugenics could have a devastating impact on natural evolution. Darwin still rules, and it should stay that way.

Funny that you should bring this up, Luke, it has so much to do with what I wrote my thesis on.

So the idea behind wanting the children to be born deaf is that the Deaf Community is a very tight-knit and dying group.

There is an obvious language barrier. Think about it this way - we learn to speak and understand what is being said to us through audio processing. Even learning to lip read is extremely difficult because those subtle movements have nothing symbolically attached to them, as sign language does. And even if you get past that, learning to speak when you've never heard a sound is damn near impossible. So it's a barrier that's nearly impossible to breach - in a way that other language barriers can usually be gotten past in some way.So the sign-languages developed add to an already tactile group. You can't say "I love you," so you have to express it through actions. The groups become very tight-knit, centered around schools for the Deaf. The relationships they have with their friends is often seen as 'truer' than those who can hear. Is it any surprise that parents would want their children to be a part of this group with them? Simply by hearing they are already distanced from the group.Which raises the idea of Difference or Disability. How are we to say that the experience of hearing is better than that of not? Studies have shown that their other senses are enhanced. Is their experience less, or is ours, or just different?

And as to eugenics, the head of the Deaf Association actually called the doctors that advocated cochlear implants as committing "genocide."

The consequences are severe assuming everything goes as planned much less if they go horribly wrong.Actually things might be better if they can't control it because then less people will do it.

I heard about the cochlear implant/genocide thing but I think regardless of how close these people are it is ridiculous to not cure deafness if they can and to make people deaf is wrong. If when people are adults they want to make themselves deaf then fine. They need a head of the deaf association that is trying to cure these people.

I find American society to be completely ill-prepared both ethically and legally with the advances in biology. I'm not one to confuse technological progress with social progress, but a lot of change needs to happen very soon in the public discourse surrounding such issues as abortion and homosexuality which ,frankly, till now, are simply bat-fucking insane. We cannot afford the subject of eugenics to be left un-addressed due to political failure.